On many issues the Supreme Court justices are deeply divided, but on the issue of cameras in the courtroom, they are solidly in agreement. They know that cameras in the courtroom will make it harder for them to do their job.

Their job is to decide cases — often on the most divisive issues of the day — while still retaining the public's trust. They clearly succeed: The court receives by far the highest approval rating of the three branches of the federal government.

The Supreme Court is already the most transparent institution in the country. After all, the justices explain their decisions in detailed written opinions.

The decisions get made, as they should, after careful thought, discussion and exchange of written drafts that all take place behind closed doors. Even those who want cameras agree that they should only be used for oral argument that is already open to the public.

Currently, citizens can read a transcript or listen to the audio of oral argument online, or read a newspaper account of it, such as in USA TODAY. The news media argue that if audio is already available, then cameras won't make much of a difference. But the news media want cameras precisely because they know that live footage does make a difference.

Cameras would turn the public's focus from the substance of the argument to the style of the justices. Television is entertainment, and coverage would focus on the quirks and gaffes. Public confidence and trust would be hurt as the clips of a justice's facial expression or a lawyer's verbal tic go viral on the Web while the deep, thoughtful questions lie on the cutting-room floor.

The main function of oral argument is for the justices to get answers to questions that still trouble them in a case. The justices must be willing to ask difficult and probing questions, often posing situations that seem far-fetched. The justices and lawyers need to focus on this rigorous exchange.

Viral video that focuses on individual foibles would likely discourage this exchange. That would be a loss for the court and the public.

Why risk undermining the one branch of government that consistently makes hard decisions while still earning our trust? As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Nancy S. Marder is a professor of law at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law and author of the article "The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom."